Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
800.627.7271 | | PsychCorp.com
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. WAIS, WASI, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are trademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). 6045 11/11 F4701TR2
2 | Using the WASI-II with the WAIS-IV: Substituting WASI-II Subtest Scores When Deriving WAIS-IV Composite Scores
(Basso, Carona, Lowery, & Axelrod, 2002; Heaton et al., 2001). In addition, repeated testing with the same
manipulatives may further inflate scores on perceptual domain subtests in the second testing. For example,
the WAISIV testretest data indicated the average rise in scaled-score points and effect sizes from the first
to the second testing for Block Design tended to be larger than those observed for the Vocabulary or the
Similarities subtests (Wechsler, 2008). While these retest data are also influenced by item practice effects
because the items are identical, the relatively larger rise in Block Design scores suggests an additive influence
of repeated administration effects. Specifically, as the examinee completes the easier items on Block Design,
he or she acquires knowledge of how to construct certain portions of designs (e.g., a triangle shape in a
design can be constructed by aligning the half-red sides of a surface of two blocks) that are also present in the
designs on later items. This knowledge of construction procedures may then allow the examinee to obtain
higher scores upon retest by constructing designs more quickly or accurately. The same type of knowledge is
not acquired on the Vocabulary or Similarities items. For retest studies, item practice effects are more likely
to be an issue for the Block Design, Vocabulary, and Similarities subtests because the examinee may recall
items and research or learn correct responses prior to retest administration.
Procedural learning effects may exist when a comprehensive measure with similar subtests is administered
after an abbreviated measure. For instance, when the WASI-II is administered before the WAISIV, procedural
learning may inflate scores on the corresponding subtests in the WAISIV. However, if the results from the
screener test can be substituted for the comparable subtest scores on the comprehensive battery, the need
for re-administration of measures of strong resemblance can be eliminated and potential score inflation due
to procedural learning can also be avoided.
Table 3 shows the mean comparisons on the WASIII sample where the WASIII was given before the
WAISIV. On the obtained composite scores, there are 2.5, 1.1, and 3.4 points difference on the FSIQ, VCI,
and PRI, respectively, between the WASIII sample and the matched sample. The WASIII sample scores are
all higher than the matched controls. Given the results from the baseline sample (Table 2), it is expected that
the higher observed scores are largely due to procedural learning from the WASIII administration prior to
the WAISIV; however, it is likely that the Flynn effect may contribute about .5 points to these score increases.
Table 3 also shows that when the WASIII subtest scores were used to substitute the corresponding subtests
in the WAISIV, the resulting scores are lower than the inflated (i.e., obtained) scores and the difference
from the matched controls is minimized. Precisely, the WASIII-substituted composite scores differ from the
matched control by .8, 0, and .2 points on the FSIQ, VCI, and PRI, respectively.
The alternative to substitution is omitting a subtest in the composite that may be the most subjective to pro-
cedural learning. These results are presented also in Table 3. It is found that on the VCI, the estimated com-
posite is closer to the matched-control mean when the Similarities subtest was omitted (VCI_noSI, 99.8, or
.9 points difference from matched control). On the PRI, Matrix Reasoning seems to have a larger procedural
learning effect and the estimated PRI without this subtest is closer to the matched control (PRI_noMR, 101.5,
or 2.8 points difference from matched control). Consequently, the FSIQ estimate is closest to the matched
sample when Similarities and Matrix Reasoning were discounted (FSIQ_noSIMR, 100.6, or 2.1 points differ-
ence from matched control). Among all proration scenarios studied, however, no prorated composite score
is closer to the matched-control sample than the estimated scores using the WASIII substitution approach.
Testing Interval
Minimizing the time that elapses between administration of the WASIII and the remaining WAISIV subtests
is recommended as best practice. Intervening events in the examinees life or changes in his or her health or
mental status between administration of the WASIII and administration of the remaining WAISIV subtests
may decrease consistency of results and increase difficulty in interpretation. However, it is left to the clinical
judgment of the practitioner to determine whether the testing interval is appropriate, given the examinees
individual situation.
Using WASIII Scaled Scores to Derive WAISIV Composite Scores
After the WASIII subtest T scores are derived, use the following steps to determine the examinees scaled
score for each of the WASIII subtests. The WASIII converted subtest scaled scores are then summed with
the remaining WAISIV subtest scaled scores to derive the desired composite scores (e.g., VCI, PRI, and FSIQ).
Step 1. Converting WASIII T Scores to Scaled Scores
To convert T scores to scaled scores, use Table A.2 in the WASIII Manual. For each WASIII subtest, locate
the examinees T score. Read across the row to the Scaled Score column.
Step 2. Recording the WASIII Converted Scaled Scores on the WAISIV Record Form
On the front page of the WAISIV Record Form, locate the Total Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions
table. To ensure that the substitution is clear to others who may access records in the future, do not record
the WASIII subtest total raw scores on the WAISIV Record Form. Record only the WASIII subtest
scaled scores in the column immediately to the right of the Raw Score column and in every unshaded box to
the right. For example, the WASIII Matrix Reasoning converted scaled score is entered in the first column
under Scaled Scores and in the columns labeled Perc. Rsng. and Full Scale. Clearly indicate above the Total
Raw Score to Scaled Score Conversions table that substitution was used by noting, for example, WASIII
converted scores used for BD, SI, MR, and VC subtest scaled scores. Examiners may wish to mark through
the Block Design, Similarities, Vocabulary, and Matrix Reasoning sections of the WAISIV Record Form as
a reminder not to administer those WAISIV subtests. If possible, attach the WASIII Record Form to the
WAISIV Record Form after the WAISIV has been administered and scored.
8 | Using the WASI-II with the WAIS-IV: Substituting WASI-II Subtest Scores When Deriving WAIS-IV Composite Scores
Conclusion
Although it is best practice to administer the full WAISIV if the WASIII has not been administered,
WASIII substitution is recommended as a best practice consideration due to repeated administration
effects, particularly if the WASIII has been administered relatively recently (i.e., within 212 weeks prior to
WAISIV administration). If the practitioner is concerned that repeated administration effects continue to
impact performance after longer intervals (e.g., 6 months), WASIII substitution might be utilized with more
caution in these cases. These concerns will vary across ability level and across individuals, as will interven-
ing events and cognitive development between administration of the WASIII and the WAISIV; therefore,
the practitioner should use clinical judgment in determining if substitution is appropriate in the examinees
individual case. In cases where WASIII substitution is utilized, it is recommended that practitioners specify in
the testing report that WAISIV scores were derived by WASIII substitution.
Using the WASI-II with the WAIS-IV: Substituting WASI-II Subtest Scores When Deriving WAIS-IV Composite Scores | 9
Table 6 WAISIV Subtest Raw Score Equivalents for WASIII T Scores for Substitution
Using WAISIV Scoring Assistant
T Ages: 1617 Ages: 1819 Ages: 2024 Ages: 2529 T
Score BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI Score
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021
2224 8 1 5 6 8 2 5 7 7 2 5 8 6 3 5 8 2224
2528 11 3 6 8 11 4 6 9 10 5 6 10 9 6 6 10 2528
2931 15 6 8 10 15 7 8 11 14 9 8 12 14 10 8 12 2931
3234 20 10 10 12 20 11 10 13 19 13 10 14 19 14 10 14 3234
3538 25 14 12 14 25 15 12 15 24 17 12 16 24 18 11 17 3538
3941 30 18 14 16 30 19 14 17 30 21 14 18 29 22 13 19 3941
4244 36 22 15 19 36 23 15 20 35 25 15 20 35 26 15 21 4244
4548 41 25 17 21 41 26 17 22 40 28 17 22 39 30 17 22 4548
4951 45 29 19 23 45 30 19 23 45 32 19 24 44 33 19 24 4951
5254 49 32 20 24 49 33 20 25 49 35 20 26 49 37 20 27 5254
5558 54 36 22 26 53 37 22 27 53 38 22 28 53 40 21 29 5558
5961 57 39 23 27 56 40 23 28 56 42 23 29 56 44 22 30 5961
6264 59 42 24 29 59 43 24 30 59 45 24 31 59 47 23 31 6264
6568 61 44 25 30 61 46 25 31 61 48 25 32 61 50 24 33 6568
6971 63 47 25 31 63 49 25 32 63 50 25 33 63 52 25 34 6971
7274 64 49 26 32 64 51 26 33 64 52 26 34 64 53 26 35 7274
7578 65 51 26 33 65 53 26 34 65 53 26 35 65 54 26 36 7578
7980 66 53 26 34 66 54 26 35 66 54 26 36 66 55 26 36 7980
Table 6 WAISIV Subtest Raw Score Equivalents for WASIII T Scores for Substitution
Using WAISIV Scoring Assistant (continued)
T Ages: 6569 Ages: 7074 Ages: 7579 Ages: 8084 T
Score BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI BD VC MR SI Score
2021 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2021
2224 4 3 2 5 3 2 2 4 3 2 1 4 3 2 1 3 2224
2528 7 6 3 7 6 5 3 6 6 5 2 6 6 4 2 5 2528
2931 10 10 4 10 9 9 4 9 9 8 3 8 8 7 3 7 2931
3234 14 15 5 12 13 14 5 11 12 13 4 10 11 11 4 9 3234
3538 17 19 7 15 16 18 6 14 14 17 5 13 13 15 5 12 3538
3941 21 23 8 17 19 22 7 16 17 21 6 15 15 19 6 14 3941
4244 24 28 10 19 22 27 8 18 20 26 7 17 18 25 7 16 4244
4548 28 32 12 22 26 31 10 21 23 30 9 20 21 29 8 19 4548
4951 31 36 13 24 29 35 12 23 27 34 11 22 24 33 9 21 4951
5254 35 40 15 26 32 39 13 25 30 38 12 24 27 37 11 23 5254
5558 39 44 17 28 36 43 15 27 34 42 14 26 31 41 12 25 5558
5961 43 47 18 30 40 47 17 29 37 46 15 28 34 45 14 27 5961
6264 47 50 20 31 44 50 18 30 41 49 17 29 38 48 15 28 6264
6568 51 53 22 33 48 52 20 32 45 52 19 31 41 51 17 30 6568
6971 55 54 23 34 52 54 22 33 49 54 21 32 45 53 19 31 6971
7274 58 55 24 35 56 55 23 34 53 55 22 33 49 55 21 32 7274
7578 62 56 25 36 60 56 24 35 57 56 24 34 53 56 23 33 7578
7980 66 57 26 36 64 57 25 36 61 57 25 35 57 57 25 34 7980
T Ages: 8590 T
Score BD VC MR SI Score
2021 0 0 0 0 2021
2224 3 1 0 2 2224
2528 5 3 1 4 2528
2931 7 6 2 6 2931
3234 9 10 3 8 3234
3538 11 14 4 11 3538
3941 13 18 5 13 3941
4244 15 23 6 15 4244
4548 18 27 7 17 4548
4951 21 31 8 20 4951
5254 24 36 9 22 5254
5558 27 40 11 24 5558
5961 31 44 12 26 5961
6264 34 47 14 27 6264
6568 37 50 16 29 6568
6971 41 52 18 30 6971
7274 45 54 20 31 7274
7578 49 55 22 32 7578
7980 53 56 24 34 7980
Using the WASI-II with the WAIS-IV: Substituting WASI-II Subtest Scores When Deriving WAIS-IV Composite Scores | 11
References
Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Simon & Schuster.
Brody, N. (1992). Intelligence (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Basso, M. R., Carona, F. D., Lowery, N., & Axelrod, B. N. (2002). Practice effects on the WAISIII across
3- and 6-month intervals. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 16, 5763.
Heaton, R. K., Temkin, N., Dikmen, S., Avitable, N., Taylor, M. J., Marcotte, T. D., & Grant, I. (2001).
Detecting change: A comparison of three neuropsychological methods, using normal and clinical samples.
Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 15, 7591.
Flynn, J. R. (1987). Massive IQ gains in 14 nations: What IQ tests really measure.
Psychological Bulletin, 101, 171191.
Flynn, J. R. (1999). Searching for justice: The discovery of IQ gains over time. American Psychologist, 54, 520.
Kamphaus, R. W. (1993). Clinical assessment of childrens intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Kaufman, A. S. (1990). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Rapport, L. J., Brines, D. B., Axelrod, B. N., & Theisen, M. E. (1997). Full Scale IQ as mediator
of practice effects: The rich get richer. The Clinical Neuropsychologist, 11, 375380.
Sattler, J. M. (2001). Assessment of children: Cognitive applications (4th ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.
Wechsler, D. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenThird Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleThird Edition. San Antonio, TX:
The Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for ChildrenFourth Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2008). Wechsler Adult Intelligence ScaleFourth Edition. Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of IntelligenceSecond Edition Manual.
Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
800.627.7271 | | PsychCorp.com
Copyright 2011 Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). All rights reserved. WAIS, WASI, Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence, Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale, Pearson, design for Psi, and PsychCorp are trademarks, in the U.S. and/or other countries, of Pearson Education, Inc. or its affiliate(s). 6045 11/11 F4701TR2